Author
Topic: The Modern American Conservative: Endangered? (Read 911 times)

If you look at demographic trends, it's pretty obvious that the Republican Party is headed straight for a cliff. Their increasingly desperate political maneuvers indicate that they know it, too. Lindsey Graham even broke a cardinal rule and said so out loud recently. And he's right -- it's hard to imagine the GOP still being much of a force to be reckoned with 20 or 30 years from now, if they still squawk about social issues like they do now. And without those issues, it'll be hard to get anyone on board the "Gang Rape the Poor" bandwagon that comprises the other half of their platform.

For 30 years the Republican platform has slipped from having at least a few items based on reasonable Conservatism to one that is now composed entirely of frantic lashing out like a wounded animal. They have rallied to push every agenda that would stave off this deadly (for them) shift in demographics. They hate brown people coming across the border, they hate education, they hate poor people, they hate workers organizing to deal with their bosses, they hate every kind of individual liberty that doesn't involve a gun or a Bible. They hate foreign countries, especially when they have the gall to act like they're sovereign. Every single Republican position is now one that represents their fear of extinction.

But 20 or 30 years is a long time for the rest of us to wait, and it's pretty obvious that the Republican strategy quickly becoming "If we can't have America, then neither can you." They're leaving, but by God they're going to burn everything down before they go. Schools. Roads. Health care. Equality. Labor. Everything. They're already setting fire to anything that moves, in their desperate, last-ditch attempt to hide from their inevitable fate and the march of history. Luckily for us, the Democrats are already talking about forming a committee to decide what color to paint the fire truck.

So what will the rest of us have left when they're finally gone? What will the next iteration of America™ look like (assuming there's anything left to call America)?

Y'know, they were saying the Republican party was going extinct in 2004. They still seem to be kicking all right, although admittedly this is based on the fact that I'm practically swimming in these kind of people. Maybe if Fresno/surrounding counties go red this election, I'll buy the theory. Frankly, business supports these assholes and that means a lot for their long term survival and a lot of people are too stupid to vote in their own actual best interest (you know the 47% thing? How many of them vote Republican, do you reckon? How many of them were swayed at all by Romney's comment?).

But if you're right, I'm not sure what the next iteration of American politics will be. Maybe more left, but I don't see a third party anywhere in a position to maybe take the Republican's place as the other major party in our system.

Logged

“Call me sentimental, but there’s no-one in the world that I’d like to see get dysentery more than you.” — David Nicholls (One Day)

From what I can tell, the Democrats of 2012 are pretty much the Republicans of the 1980s, and it's the liberals who are getting shafted. The Overton window has shifted well to the right, and most "centrists" are essentially conservatives.

From what I can tell, the Democrats of 2012 are pretty much the Republicans of the 1980s, and it's the liberals who are getting shafted. The Overton window has shifted well to the right, and most "centrists" are essentially conservatives.

Yeah the Democrats are useless. If the GOP dies, we need a party to replace the Democrats, because the Democrats will be replacing the GOP.

More than likely- the parties will switch places again with the republicans becoming the liberal party again instead of the party dying out.

Im not sure what the future will look like but ive run into enough 20 year old douches to know that conservativism will still be around in 60 years. Especially if fox is still around.

Well I'm not even that opposed to "conservatism," if it was actual conservatism and not this brainwashed anti-science bullshit that passes for conservatism these days. I'll probably never be a Conservative, but I'm fine with real Conservatism existing as a fair counterweight to Progressivism. Then again, there really is no real Progressive party in America either -- just Completely Batshit Conservatism and Slightly Less Batshit Conservatism. Today's "young Republicans" will probably feel quite at home in the Democratic Party since they're already shedding the social conservatism baggage and the DNC isn't really economically progressive either. They're still for fucking the poor -- they just want a government program to distribute low-quality lube while they do it.

The main thing that gives me hope is that the religious nutjobs will soon be too small a group to form the base of either major party.

Megachurches aren't extreme fundamentalist Christianity though. They're Facebook Christianity. Megachurches aren't even always as socially conservative as you might think, and they're not the core of the religious base of the Republican Party. In fact most of the die-hard Christian extremists who comprise the most radical arm of the GOP despise megachurches because they are too big to keep everyone in line properly, too open to progressivism, and too lax on social issues. Besides the vast majority of people who attend megachurches are likely to be attending church for no reason other than because they are expected to or for the socializing.

There are more extremists in megachurches, for the same reason there are more murderers in New York. But per capita, the occurrence is much smaller than in smaller, independent churches.

The extreme Religious Right will always be a strong voice, but they're too exclusive to do the Republican much good for much longer. Having the Religious Right on board precludes you from taking on certain other demographics (because the Religious Right likes to kick people off a moving train just to see whether angels swoop down to save them or not). And the demographics most at odds with the Religious Right are the fastest-growing demographics in America.

It is, as always, a twisted clusterfuck that no sane person will ever unravel completely, but the fact is that the Religious Right is quickly becoming too small to elect anyone on a national level just by themselves and their social influence. So far the GOP has survived by building a coalition between these hillbillies and Big Business, but big business isn't big enough to elect anyone either. And with the zealots dropping like flies over the next 20 years or so, the GOP is gonna have to find somebody else to take their place.

I think the GOP could easily rework their base. I've met many people that are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If they argued for equal rights, womens rights, ending the drug war, etc etc AND shrinking the size and influence of government, they would not only have a party line they could survive with, but they'd actually be making a cohesive argument

Honestly though, I would guess we'll see a split with an extremely religious/social conservative party and a socially liberal/fiscally conservative party and the Democrats as the cohesive, "absolutely no clue what they are" party. Either that or the "Independents" will just continue to grow as people find a reason to flee the traditional parties.

"Socially liberal" involves a couple of different things. One is the ability to do with yourself and with your life as you see fit. The other is a load of different things that can be grouped together as a "social safety net". This is definitely not in keeping with "fiscally conservativism".

So, if you define yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, either you're a "fiscally conservative" person who wants to take drugs and doesn't give a shit about Gay marriage, or you're a liberal. You can't really separate fiscal concerns from societal concerns at large.

This is really why the conservative/liberal model doesn't work anymore, unless you're whole-hog one way or the other.

Personally, I am a liberal in the sense that the more radical founders were liberal. I don't tell YOU what to do, and YOU don't tell ME what to do, on a personal level...But we all pay our taxes and get shit like roads and schools out of it (Jefferson, for example, was a strong proponent of public schools, and roads are written right into the constitution).

Yeah, that's where I thought you were going. "Socially liberal" has to include helping people who are doing poorly. Since it's not in the best interests of a private company to give away resources, it has to be the government. Or compassionate citizens, but a lot of these problems need a larger organization that individual citizens can't muster.

Yeah, that's where I thought you were going. "Socially liberal" has to include helping people who are doing poorly. Since it's not in the best interests of a private company to give away resources, it has to be the government. Or compassionate citizens, but a lot of these problems need a larger organization that individual citizens can't muster.

People who bitch about paying taxes cannot be relied upon to provide charity.